Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
Update on Furuno Requests against Honeywell Marine Navigation Patents
| August 19, 2010
In June we reported that Furuno had filed reexamination requests against five Honeywell patents claiming marine display and navigation systems. Honeywell had previously sued Furuno in Minnesota for infringing those five patents. Judge Michael Davis has now stayed that case pending completion of the five reexaminations.
In granting the stay, Judge Davis recited the familiar three-part test for determining whether to grant a stay: whether there would be prejudice to the patentee, whether a stay would simplify the issues, and the stage of the litigation. The stay order is noteworthy, however, in that the PTO had granted reexamination for only one of the five Honeywell patents. To reject Honeywell’s argument that a stay with respect to all five patents would therefore be premature, Judge Davis relied heavily on the PTO statistics showing that reexamination is granted in the great majority of cases.[1] This reliance on PTO reexamination statistics contrasts markedly with the skepticism recently expressed by Judge Keith Ellison in Tesco v. Weatherford Int’l (Civ. No. 08-cv-2531).
The stay order is also interesting in that Judge Davis noted a passage from the PTO’s reexamination grant “that Furuno U.S.A.’s marine navigation software, MaxSea, which Honeywell has accused of infringement, ‘is directed to a different field of endeavor, namely a seas based charting system rather than the flight display system as claimed.’” (Emphasis added). The reexamination may therefore have an effect on the infringement issues when the case returns to the court after the stay is lifted.
[1] Since Judge Davis granted the stay, reexamination has been granted for three of the remaining Honeywell patents, and the request for the fifth is still pending.
